SynthesisFuture cardiology2025
Real-world evidence comparing oral anticoagulants for NVAF in Europe: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Future cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared to Warfarin Early After Cardiac Surgery: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.CJC open · 2026Article
- Pharmacogenomics of Rivaroxaban: Association ofPharmaceutics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimAtrial fibrillation is the most commonly sustained cardiac arrhythmia, increasing the risk of stroke and systemic embolic events. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare real-world evidence (RWE) on the effectiveness and safety of edoxaban with other direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in Europe. MATERIALS &
methodsSearches from January 2013 to December 2022 identified comparative observational studies assessing effectiveness/safety outcomes in patients with NVAF. Bayesian NMA estimated comparative effectiveness/safety of edoxaban with other DOACs and VKAs.
resultsThe review identified 57 studies analyzing data from 24 unique databases; 33 studies were included in the base-case analyses. DOACs showed benefit over VKAs for most outcomes, of which major bleeding and all-cause mortality were most commonly reported. Edoxaban demonstrated a comparable effectiveness/safety profile to other DOACs and significantly reduced risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [95% credible interval]: 0.67 [0.54, 0.84]) and intracranial hemorrhage (0.69 [0.51, 0.94]) versus rivaroxaban.
conclusionThis NMA provides valuable insights into the real-world effectiveness and safety of DOACs and VKAs in Europe, supporting clinical decision-making and adding to the existing evidence base from clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.